Multimodal LLC v. Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Multimodal LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00420, W.D. Wis., 06/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products infringe a patent related to an object-recognition lock that uses an object's surface texture as a key.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns security systems that grant access not by a traditional key or biometric feature, but by scanning the unique microscopic surface texture of an ordinary object.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,045,763 - Object-recognition lock

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,045,763, “Object-recognition lock,” issued May 16, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the drawbacks of conventional security locks, noting that traditional keys can be lost or copied and that spare keys are often hidden in obvious places, while combination locks require memorization and can be "picked" (’763 Patent, col. 1:11-46). Existing pattern-recognition systems, such as iris scanners, are described as expensive and limited in application (’763 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a lock system that uses a scanner to capture an image signal of an object's "micro-textured surface" (’763 Patent, col. 2:27-36). A controller compares this scanned texture to a pre-stored reference texture; if they match, a lock assembly is actuated (’763 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows nearly any object with a unique surface—such as a rock, a piece of wood, or a person's palm—to function as a key (’763 Patent, col. 5:19-24).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a secure, keyless entry system that was more flexible and less expensive than high-end biometric systems by leveraging the inherent uniqueness of microscopic textures on common objects (’763 Patent, col. 7:31-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified "Exemplary '763 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • scanning an object for at least one surface texture of the object;
  • generating at least one image signal indicative of the at least one surface texture;
  • comparing the at least one surface texture of the object indicated by the at least one image signal with a reference texture; and
  • actuating the lock if the at least one surface texture of the object matches the reference texture,
  • wherein the comparison occurs at a "micro-level in which depths of features of the surface texture and features of the reference texture are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns."
• The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but reserves the right to assert them (Compl. ¶11, ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify any specific product by name (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market position. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '763 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The complaint's narrative theory is that unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" made, used, sold, or imported by the Defendant satisfy all elements of the asserted claims of the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the as-yet-unidentified accused products perform the functions recited in the claims.
  • Technical Question: A key technical dispute may arise over whether the accused products, once identified, operate at the specific dimensional scale required by the claims. The complaint raises the question of what evidence exists to show that an accused product performs a comparison at the "micro-level in which depths of features... are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns," as required by claim 1 (’763 Patent, col. 7:65-col. 8:2).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "comparing... at a micro-level in which depths of features of the surface texture and features of the reference texture are in a range of 5 microns to 500 microns" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central as it quantifies the specific scale of the claimed invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend entirely on whether the accused products operate within this numerically defined range. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity provides a clear, albeit potentially narrow, boundary for the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the surface texture variations as being "generally in the size range of 5 microns (µm) to 500 µm" (’763 Patent, col. 2:38-41; col. 4:15-17). A party might argue that the term "generally" suggests the numerical range is representative or typical, not an absolute and strict limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself recites the specific numerical range without qualification. The consistent repetition of this range in the detailed description (’763 Patent, col. 2:38-41; col. 4:15-17; col. 9:28-30) suggests it is a fundamental characteristic of the invention, not merely an exemplary embodiment, which may support a construction that strictly adheres to the recited bounds.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on post-suit knowledge, asserting that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its alleged infringement at least since the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A primary issue will be one of specification and evidence: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, first identify the accused products with the specificity absent from the complaint and then produce technical evidence that these products in fact perform a texture comparison that meets the specific "micro-level" limitations defined in the asserted claims?
2. The case will also present a core question of claim scope: The construction of the phrase "a range of 5 microns to 500 microns" will be critical. The court's interpretation of whether this numerical range is an absolute requirement or a general guideline will likely be a dispositive factor in the infringement analysis.